You are most welcome in our new Official Google+ Collections community where you will be in contact with our team and plenty of active users.
Come have a look, share your Collections, learn new feature worthy tips, and most importantly have FUN!
Check out our community: https://goo.gl/QuFyFJ
#Collectionize #happycreating #getcreative
We’ve come a long way since first challenged us to demonstrate that self-driving technology had long-term potential. Back in 2009, he gave us two audacious goals. The first was to drive 100,000 miles on public roads; in 2009, this was about 10x more miles than had ever been completed by any autonomous driving team. The second was to drive 10 sets of 100 interesting miles—well known California routes that included crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, navigating the curves of Lombard Street in San Francisco, and traversing the 200+ traffic lights of major boulevard El Camino Real. We met those early goals, but it was hard to imagine we’d ever cruise the boulevards of Mountain View, California, as smoothly as we do today. We’re taking this million mile milestone as further proof that fully self-driving vehicles will become a reality, and we’re looking forward to finding out where the next million miles will take us.
Though more than 4 out of 5 Chromebooks are sold in the U.S., the bigger picture is that they are now about 2.5 percent of what annualised PC sales are worldwide. At the same time, Gartner recently reported PC sales declining in 1Q15 by about 5.2 percent compared to 1Q14 sales (http://goo.gl/gnSBM9). By contrast, Gartner estimates that Chromebook 2015 sales will rise about 27 percent from last year. I think that the estimate is low, perhaps my a third or a half, at least.
The main point is this: nobody wants to replace a PC unless they have to, and very few want to buy a new one if they haven't already had one. Macbook sales also continue to grow, and Gartner estimates that they rose about 8.9 percent in 1Q15 to about 1.7 million units. But here's the thing: if Gartner is saying that Chromebooks sales will be about 7.3 million units for the whole year, then Chromebook sales are about to surpass Macbook sales.
So, quietly, Chromebooks have become THE star for laptop sales.
The reason is fairly simple: if a market were truly "free" (with all the subtleties that that phrase entails), people would be doing what they're best at, in the way that rewards them the most. Discrimination is, by its nature, something that keeps people from doing what they want to. And general principles of economics tell us that, when resources are allocated inefficiently, the economy as a whole slows down.
More concretely, if there's someone who would have been a great doctor, but is instead forced by circumstance -- be it being the wrong race or growing up poor -- to be a janitor instead, then not only does she lose out on everything she would have gained as a doctor, but everyone else loses out on everything she would have done as a doctor.
This brings us to this rather interesting paper from four researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research, who wanted to put some numbers to this. (http://klenow.com/HHJK.pdf) For example, in 1960, 94% of doctors and lawyers were white men; in 2008, 62% were. Since there's no reason to believe that white men are intrinsically better at being doctors than anyone else, that gives us a way to estimate how many people would have been doctors who weren't. By building a mathematical model out of this, they estimate the real economic impact of discrimination -- and it turns out that somewhere between 15-20% of our total economic growth during that period comes from that.
For a sense of scale, during this time the inflation-adjusted GDP grew from $3.95T (in 2008 dollars) to $14.7T. That means that at the lower end of the estimate, the discrimination that went away between 1960 and 2008 was costing the US about $33 billion (in 2008 dollars, again) per year.
Note that this is just the aggregate cost to society as a whole, summed up between rich and poor. Obviously some people gained from this as well -- e.g., the people who became doctors who wouldn't have been able to, had the full pool of people who could have been doctors been allowed to participate. (And there's your next unsettling thought for the day: if you take the people who want to be doctors and line them up in order of how good a doctor they would be, and cut it off after you have enough doctors, you've got the best possible pool of doctors. If you take any one of them out of eligibility for some reason, then his replacement is mathematically guaranteed to be a worse doctor. You have just promoted some undeserving schmuck to perform surgery on you. Congratulations.)
But leaving aside the question of how different people fared under this, consider as well: this difference accounts for all of the discrimination that went away between 1960 and 2008.
We have not, by any stretch of the imagination, gotten rid of all the discrimination. The girl growing up in the Appalachian back country, the boy growing up in Baltimore, the child of migrant farm workers, these people are not likely to be able to go to college, get a BA or MD, work in the job of their choice.
When we talk about the economic costs of inequality, this is the sort of thing that really matters: not just the costs to those at the bottom, but the fact that inequality of opportunity has huge costs for society as a whole. Since in our society in particular, opportunity is greatly tied to existing resources -- consider anything from access to out-of-school enrichment, to having a good suit to wear to an interview, to knowing how to interview for a job in the first place (you learned that; it wasn't innate. You learned it from other people, and access to those people is a resource) -- resource inequality leads in turn to opportunity inequality, and that drags everyone down, even as it enriches the incompetent few.
Macroeconomics says: Trade makes everyone wealthier. You can't impoverish some people without that screwing everyone else over, as well. Trying to flout those laws tends to work about as well as trying to flout gravity: it might work really well, briefly. There's just that sudden stop at the end.
(Illustration via Paul Townsend: https://flic.kr/p/dVva6h. What goes up tends to come down somewhat rapidly, at times.)
I'll put this question out to my followers: have you increased your usage following the introduction of the collections feature?
- University of Technology, SydneyProgrammer, 2012 - 2013
- Freelancer.comProgrammer, 2011 - 2012
- ICT SecurityProgrammer, 2009 - 2011
- Sun MicrosystemCampus Ambassador, 2007 - 2009
- University of SydneyTutor, 2009 - 2009
Triticum Fever, by Dr. William Davis, author of Wheat Belly - Boing Boing
Features Reviews Video Science Gweek B-SIDE Archive Submit More SEARCH. About Us Contact Us Policies Shop Facebook Twitter Subscribe. DESKTO
The Comfort Principle: Spend Money Where You Spend Your Time
One of Lifehacker's main tasks is to help you save money. But once you've saved money, where should you spend it in order to maximize your h
10 cool things you can do with Wolfram Alpha and Siri
Steve Sande and I have been collaborating on \"Talking to Siri,\" an ebook that just recently hit the Kindle store. It's a how-to that will
YouTube - Snapdragon Presents: The Bug Circus Generator
Buat AkaunLog Masuk. Home. Semak SeimbasMuat Naik. Hei di sana, ini bukan gangguan komersial. Anda menggunakan penyemak imbas yang sudah ket